Procurement chief: Measure contractor performance

April 25, 2013 by

Joe Jordan, the top White House procurement official, recently told a gathering of government officials and contractors how he and his wife sometimes travel to New England and look for places to stay along the way. He wasn’t giving travel advice, though.

The remarks, delivered at an acquisition conference in Washington, aimed to highlight a way the government can improve how it does business.

“It really bothers me at a personal, visceral level that when I look for a bed and breakfast because my wife and I are going away for the weekend, I have vastly more descriptive information … about the quality of bed and breakfasts within a three-hour drive of D.C. than what many agencies have when they answer to a $20 million IT services contract,” Jordan said. “That’s ridiculous.”

Keep reading this article at: http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20130417/IT03/304170004/Procurement-chief-Measure-contractor-performance?odyssey=nav%7Chead 

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: , , , , ,

Sharing contractor performance data in eight easy steps

March 27, 2013 by

The Obama administration is pressing the acquisition workforce to get better at telling other agencies, through a governmentwide online performance database, how well contractors do their jobs.

Joe Jordan, administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, wants to improve the quantity and quality of data agencies put into the Federal Award Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

FAPIIS is the foundation for good data, Jordan stressed in the memo, dated March 6.

“However, ” he added, “agencies must increase their use of these tools, as underreporting performance information leaves the government vulnerable to poor acquisition outcomes in the future.”

Keep reading this article at: http://fcw.com/articles/2013/03/18/contractor-performance-data.aspx 

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: , , , , , ,

OFPP tells agencies to get serious about tracking contractor performance

March 25, 2013 by

The Office of Federal Procurement Policy is attempting, for a third time, to get  agencies to use the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) more  consistently.

So instead of asking and encouraging, OFPP Administrator Joe Jordan is setting  specific goals for agencies.

In a new memo to chief acquisition officers and  senior procurement executives, Jordan sets three-year targets for agencies to  enter vendor-performance information into the governmentwide database.

This year, the goals vary depending on how often the agency is currently entering  data into PPIRS. For instance, departments inputting data for 60 percent or more  of their contracts, must improve to 85 percent by Sept. 30. For agencies using  PPIRS 30 percent to 60 percent of the time, their goal now is 75  percent. And for those agencies using PPIRS less than 30 percent of the time,  their goal is 65 percent.

“This required contract-administration duty can significantly reduce the risk to  the government on future awards, so agencies must take bold steps to ensure that  all critical performance information is made available in the Past Performance  Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) in a timely manner, and to the maximum extent  practicable, eliminate duplicative, paper-based past performance evaluation  surveys generated outside these systems,” Jordan wrote.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.federalnewsradio.com/517/3247234/OFPP-tells-agencies-to-get-serious-about-tracking-contractor-performance

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

DHS reduces noncompetitive contracts, improves oversight

March 5, 2013 by

Noncompetitive contracts at the Homeland Security Department totaled about  $389 million in fiscal 2012, down from $3.5 billion in fiscal 2008, the DHS office of inspector general says.

The department’s spending on noncompetitive contracts has dropped each year  since fiscal 2008, and in the meantime, it has improved its internal oversight  of acquisitions, the OIG says in a report dated Feb. 1, 2013 and recently posted online.

For example, out of the 40 noncompetitive awards from 2012 that auditors  examined, all those that required written justification had it complete and on  file. Problems with justification have fallen since 2008, when 27 percent of  justifications in the OIG’s sample were deficient.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/dhs-reduces-noncompetitive-contracts-improves-oversight/2013-02-20 

Download a copy of the DHA IG’s report referred to in this article at: http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2013/OIG_13-36_Feb13.pdf 

Subscribe to FierceGovernment at: http://www.fiercegovernment.com/signup?sourceform=Viral-Tynt-FierceGovernment-FierceGovernment

 

 

 

 

 

 

75 Fifth Street, NW

Suite 300

Atlanta, Georgia 30308   U.S.A.

www.innovate.gatech.edu

 

A Unit of the University System of Georgia     An Equal Education and Employment Opportunity Institution

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

8 key acquisition provisions in 2013 defense bill

January 3, 2013 by

The fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, a major piece of legislation affecting many aspects of how the government deals with costs and contracts, contains some noteworthy provisions.  Here are the eight most important provisions;

1. Better pricing data.

2. Easier analysis of pricing trends.

3. Faster access to past-performance data.

4. A review of the contractor pay cap.

5. Workforce decisions left to DOD.

6. A limit on cost-type contracts.

7. Critical acquisition jobs reserved for feds.

8. Status quo for small-business contracting goal.

To read details, please see: http://fcw.com/articles/2012/12/19/ndaa-acquisition.aspx.

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

FAR Council proposes standardizing past performance evaluations

September 19, 2012 by

A proposed rule change to the Federal Acquisition Regulation would standardize past performance evaluation factors and rating categories above the simplified acquisition threshold.

Genesis of the proposed rule, printed Sept. 6 in the Federal Register, stems from language in the fiscal 2012 national defense authorization bill which requires the FAR Council to craft standards for the timeliness and completeness of past performance database submissions.

Among the proposed changes is addition of two tables to past performance requirements in FAR 42.15 (Part 42 generally addresses contract administration and audits).

One table would be for performance in general, the other for small business subcontracting; in both cases, contracting officers would select an exception, very good, satisfactory, marginal or unsatisfactory rating for the contractor.

Keep reading this article at http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/far-council-proposes-standardizing-past-performance-evaluations/2012-09-11?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: , , , , ,

What acquisition officials can learn from ‘Real Housewives’

April 20, 2012 by

Reality TV shows provide ample evidence that relationships can fall apart very quickly because of a single ill-considered remark. A battle erupts. One person defends the remark, the other person lashes out in anger. It’s brutal to watch.

The relationships between agencies and contractors can be as delicate as those on TV.

Consider the case of a federal contracting officer, program manager or contracting officer’s representative giving a company a negative performance review. Friction can easily develop if the facts of the situation are open to interpretation or if the two parties have different views about what happened.

A recently introduced bill could change those dynamics, but not necessarily for the better.

The Comprehensive Contingency Contracting Reform Act (S. 2139), which Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) introduced in February, would revise language in the Federal Acquisition Regulation that requires agencies to provide contractors with copies of performance evaluations and give them 30 days to comment, provide additional information or rebut an official’s assessment before it is considered final.

Under a provision of the new bill, agencies would not be required to share performance evaluations with contractors ahead of time. The bill, which is focused on wartime-related contracting, is intended to make it easier for agencies to identify and suspend poorly performing contractors. Although other provisions apply only to wartime contracting, this one would be instituted across the board.

Vendors and acquisition experts say silencing contractors in that way would damage relations between government and industry, creating distrust and leading to more litigation. Given no opportunity to review performance evaluations before they are finalized, contractors are likely to take some tough protective action.

“If a contractor’s remedy to correct the record is taken away from them, there is no safety valve for them other than the courts,” said Peter Tuttle, a former Army contracting officer and now vice president of Distributed Solutions, a consulting company.

Companies must be able to guard themselves against errors, unexpected bombshells and bias in past-performance reviews. “A contractor needs the right to defend itself from either baseless attacks or misinformation that is often a surprise or should have never been a negative rating in the first place,” said Jaime Gracia, president and CEO of Seville Government Consulting. Such inaccurate reviews happen all too often, he added.

However, acquisition experts say the evaluation process is only one aspect of the agency/contractor relationship. Just as in personal interactions, conflicts are more likely to develop if a relationship is already weak.

“I think someone who believes the past-performance review is the basis for a trusting relationship is putting up smoke and mirrors,” said Elaine Duke, former undersecretary for management at the Homeland Security Department and now president of consulting firm Elaine Duke and Associates.

Tips for avoiding a breakup

Duke offered some pointers for industry and agency officials. First of all, the two sides should be talking constantly throughout the contractual relationship to share feedback about expectations and results. That becomes even more important as the contract work progresses, especially when there are personnel changes among managers or contracting officers.

“Contract management should be a daily occurrence,” Duke said.

Government officials must tell the contractor right away if they aren’t pleased with the work. By the same token, a company must identify problems early and work them out with agency officials before they get out of hand. “Shame on you if you don’t,” Duke said.

Whether or not they have the opportunity to defend their comments, agency officials must take the time to prepare accurate performance reviews. They should take detailed notes for their contract files so they have proof of poor performance. According to Duke, officials will have trouble writing a solid review without such documentation.

Furthermore, federal employees need support from higher-level managers. Their bosses must stand up for them, even when they give a company a bad review.

In the end, Duke said a negative past-performance review should not be the cause of a breakup. As with any relationship, both sides must be fully engaged.

About the Author: Matthew Weigelt is a senior writer covering acquisition and procurement for Federal Computer Week. This article appeared on Apr. 9, 2012 at http://fcw.com/Articles/2012/04/15/HOME-PAGE-Acquisition-relationships.aspx?s=fcwdaily_100412&Page=2.

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: , , ,

Should contractors keep the right to respond to past-performance reviews?

March 19, 2012 by

There’s some buzz around a provision in the newly introduced Comprehensive Contingency Contracting Reform Act that would eliminate the ability established in the Federal Acquisition Regulation for a contractor unhappy with their past-performance evaluation to enter their own version of events in the file and to appeal the original past-performance evaluation to one level higher in the organization from where the original evaluation was done.

Matthew Weigelt wrote about the provision recently on FCW.com, with a moderately incendiary headline saying the provision would “stifle” contractor responses to past-performance reports. Matthew’s article was a top-five read and emailed article on the FCW site, so the issue is attracting attention.

With a small tweak, this could actually be a really good change. But the tweak is necessary, and I hope the bill’s authors will make it.

The big problem with the current FAR language is that it allows a contractor to appeal a past-performance rating one level above where it was made. In my view, this appeal right has been devastating for the honesty of past-performance ratings, and therefore for the ability of past-performance to be a differentiator in contract awards. For past-performance to work in choosing contractors, the government needs to be able to observe differentiation between better performers, who should be rewarded with new contracts, and poorer ones, who shouldn’t.

The serious shortcomings in the government’s past-performance rating system in turn is really too bad, because judgments, formal and informal, of the past performance of those with whom we do business are an absolutely crucial part of the ability of a market system to work in improving results. If we like the haircut a barber gave us, we go back, and if we didn’t, we don’t – this really provides an incentive for barbers to do a good job.

I was the person, as OFPP administrator, who authorized the current FAR language when the past-performance evaluation system began in the ‘90s. I was concerned at the time that this appeal provision was a mistake, and I believe that subsequent results have confirmed my worries. Contracting officers believe that a bad rating is an invitation to spend countless hours having to defend their judgments, and the easy response, especially with staff shortages and not enough time, is simply to go light on bad comments.

So as the person responsible for the original language, I vote for its repeal.

However, the bill’s provisions go a bit too far. There is no reason to eliminate the ability of the contractor to give their version of events and have it put in the contract file. That just seems like elementary fairness, so others using the past-performance report get to see a different version of what happened, if there is one. I think that at least enlightened elements in the contractor community could support elimination of the dysfunctional appeal process, which undermines the ability of the past-performance system to work at all. But elimination of even the right to comment is sure to arouse the ire of all contractors, as Weigelt’s article seems to show.

Can the bill authors tweak their language so it can help create a real improvement in the government’s past-performance rating system?

– by Steve Kelman, Washington Technology, Mar, 5, 2012 at http://washingtontechnology.com/blogs/lectern/2012/03/contractors-past-performance.aspx?s=wtdaily_060312.

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: , , , ,

Contractors will remain in limbo during debates over automatic Defense cuts

January 26, 2012 by

“Fasten your seat belts,” a panelist told Defense Department contractors ahead of likely sparring between lawmakers and the White House over the details of automatic budget cuts slated to hit the Pentagon in January 2013.

“Defense contractors are hostages in the showdown between the president and Congress over funding decisions on taxing and spending.” John Cooney, a partner at Venable LLP law form and a former Office of Management and Budget general counsel, told a panel convened Tuesday by the Professional Services Council, a contractors trade group.

Despite the failure last fall of a group of lawmakers dubbed the super committee to agree on $1.2 trillion in savings, the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget have determined that no automatic cuts — called sequestration under the 2011 Budget Control Act — are necessary immediately.

But barring legislative intervention, spending related to national security, which in addition to the Pentagon includes the Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs departments and intelligence agencies, could face across-the-board cuts on Jan. 3, 2013.

Robert Keith, former senior specialist at the Congressional Research Service, said in a review of the budget procedures that Defense would be hit with a cut of 9.3 percent in 2013 if the president exercises his discretion to exempt military personnel, or 7.5 percent if he does not exempt them. From 2014-2014, that would translate to cuts of about $55 billion a year, Keith said.

“There have been such cuts in the past, but not of this magnitude,” he said.

In reviewing the legal procedures used in a sequestration, Cooney noted the practice has been invoked only once, following passage of the 1985 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget act. Back then, contractors “got a free ride,” he said, whereas this year the Obama administration negotiated to put many more contractors’ interest on the table. “The only silver lining from Gramm-Rudman,” he said, “was that both Congress and the executive branch figured out that the cuts and revenues generated the intellectual capital for the 1986 reform of the tax code.”

If the sequestration kicks in next January, the details will not be known until there is an analysis from CBO, then a report from OMB and then an order to agencies from the president, the panelists noted. The cuts, technically called “impoundments” and “apportionments,” would be legally binding for every agency, with violators subject to criminal penalties.

“But the president can put his thumb on the scale,” Cooney said, meaning he has some discretion in favoring some programs within line items, though he may chose not to exercise it for fear of alienating Congress. “It’s highly controversial within agencies. The contracting officers will be told of the cuts’ impact relatively late in the process.”

Agencies also will have some discretion, Cooney said, in weighing personnel cuts against contract expenditures, for example. Their least attractive option would be to terminate contracts; their most feasible options would be to lower the cap on existing cost reimbursement contracts by telling contractors, in effect, “Use your best efforts but don’t exceed $Y dollars,” he said. Though prior-year contracts would be exempt, there would likely be few new contracts, and agencies would rely more on indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity contracts.

Contractors were encouraged to be proactive and “engage their customers” by staying in touch with contracting officers despite the limits on what they will know about future cuts.

Alan Chvotkin, PSC’s executive vice president and counsel, said agencies likely will reduce mandatory contracting commitments, maximize discretionary commitments and defer contract award decisions. That means adjusting acquisition strategies for new awards based on available funds, he said, and looking at “long-term agency mission flexibility.”

He predicted greater use of General Services Administration schedules for products and services, and he counseled contractors to review their past performance records in federal databases.

– by Charles S. Clark – Government Executive – January 18, 2012 – http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=49790&dcn=e_gvet

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Public release of contractor data delayed

January 17, 2012 by

Contractors can still challenge information tjat goes into the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity System, but they have just a two-week window before the information becomes public.

The new provision takes affect Jan. 17, 2012. The start date was missing when the final rule was published Jan. 3.

Any information that agencies enter into database from Jan. 17 onward will be subject to a two-week delay before it is transferred to the publicly available part of FAPIIS. Past performance information won’t be published at all. Contractors will receive notice when new information about their company goes into FAPIIS, and they will have 7 days to point out information that should be exempt under the Freedom of Information Act.

In the new Federal Register notice, officials wrote that the delay until Jan. 17 will give agencies time to complete necessary system changes to support the two-week waiting period before contractors’ information goes live.

The current system is designed to automatically transfer information to the publicly available part of FAPIIS. Until officials make the change, companies would not have an opportunity to request withholding the information, the notice states.

FAPIIS is a one-stop website for contracting officers and federal employees to look at the history of companies’ work with the federal government. It includes data from the Performance Information Retrieval System, as well as information from other databases, including the Excluded Parties List System, which cites companies that are suspended or debarred from federal contracting.

The final rule gives companies seven days to find any information that should not be disclosed because it should be considered exempt. In such a case, officials will remove the information from FAPIIS to resolve the issue.

If the government official does not remove the item, it will be automatically released to the public website within 14 days after beginning entered into FAPIIS, according to the notice.

About the Author: Matthew Weigelt is a senior writer covering acquisition and procurement for Federal Computer Week. This article appeared Jan. 11, 2012 at http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2012/01/10/fapiis-contractor-information.aspx?s=wtdaily_120112.

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: , , , ,
«Older Posts